Communications of the ACM

• The particular occupation for which one is trained;
• A general course of conduct in life or a calling in life, visible to others in one's community;
• The general progression of one's working or professional life;
• Time in a profession after receiving one's last formal degree (BS, MS, or Ph.D.); and
• Doing the same thing over a long period of time (as in "She made her hobby into a career").

Most working lives do not fit these notions. Many of us have changed fields since receiving our college degrees, and many will change fields several times more. Many of us don't want to make a long-term commitment to any one employer. Many of us do not even know if we have a calling. Is career a dead notion? Is all the college talk about preparation for career obsolete and misleading?

Fernando Flores and John Gray think so. They say that two life-styles are emerging in the wake of career's death [3, 4]. Both styles are practical responses of people in a working world where the traditional notion of career no longer exists. One style is primarily self-directed and the other primarily community-directed. Flores and Gray use the term "wired life" for the first, and "entrepreneurial life" for the second. Unfortunately, these two terms evoke negative connotations. For example, "wired" sounds like a shallow, self-centered fad to some people; "entrepreneur" suggests greedy, unscrupulous competitor to some. I will avoid these colorful terms because I do not want to obscure the important point made by Flores and Gray.

Persons living the self-directed style are driven by a quest for growth, autonomy, and passionate expression of their creativity. They do not accept the notion of a lifelong commitment or loyalty to a single employer. In fact, they see such a commitment as an impediment. Instead, they move with their talents and inclinations, organizing their working lives as a series of projects that call forth their passion, develop their capacities, and extend their skills. They are engaged in the project, not the company. They cultivate personal public identities emphasizing their passions, technical skills, and reliability; identities that guarantee them an income stream from new projects. They receive the recognition they need from professional communities, which they appropriately join for their current projects. They see spontaneity and excellence in what they love as the most appropriate ways to deal with the fast-changing technology marketplace and preserving their autonomy in an increasingly regulated world.

Persons living the community-directed style are driven by a quest to bring value to others in the communities in which they live. They immerse themselves in their communities' histories and participate in their communities' social actions. They are attuned to disharmonies, tensions, or conflicts within their communities, and they devote themselves to bringing together people to resolve these discordances. They view this style as a high good to commit themselves to the long-term well-being of their communities and to solidarity with their community members. (This is altruism mingled with self-interest; creating value and power for the community also creates value, power, and reputation for the contributor.) Flores and Gray say that successful entrepreneurs exemplify this style. This style is not limited to the business life. Many academics, civil servants, and political and cultural activists fit this definition.

Many of us do not even know if we have a calling. Is career a dead notion? Is all the college talk about preparation for career obsolete and misleading?

These two styles share a common element: the value dimension. All professionals are concerned that their relationships bring value to their clients and earn a reputation for quality. While there are many people who clearly prefer one style or the other, there are also many who practice a mixture of the two. Successful entrepreneurs exemplify a good combination: they do the work they love; they develop excellence over time; and they build businesses whose projects match their publicly acknowledged expertise.

Many practitioners of the self-directed life find it can bring unpleasant surprises and dissatisfaction. They have to sell their work. They might not get hired for a next project. Their former project partners may show no loyalty or lasting friendship. They may not develop a public identity. They may find themselves swamped with customer demands and unable to do what they prefer. They may also find the stream of projects, driven by the need to generate income, is too diverse to permit them to develop a coherent body of work. They may be competent or proficient in some of their endeavors but may not develop into experts. All this can add up to a lack of meaning in their working lives. Most of us would like to believe that, when we put down our tools for the last time, we will be able to look back on the corpus of our work and say, "it is good."

Practitioners of the community-directed style usually find it very fulfilling. This style includes many of the basic virtues of traditional careers. The person has a public commitment to develop a new, harmonizing practice for some or all members of the community. The community grants recognition for the work declared and for accomplishment. The person and all colleagues are loyal to one another. The person and work group support others involved in similar ventures. The person and work group build new forms of community. The person is author of a continuous life story that gives meaning and carries the person through difficult times.